MAPLight.org

Though the idea of relieving some of the estimated $335 million (EPA figure) in annual compliance costs is noble in the fact that it, theoretically, speeds up the process of environmental accountability in American farming, the legislation does not address the myriad of issues tied to CAFO use that would persist even after compliance with the 2003 EPA Final Rule.

For one, the spreading of communicable diseases as a result of the proximity of animals in CAFOs (and potential for mutation and eventual antibiotic resistance of these diseases) is a serious concern regardless of CAFO waste management compliance, with the constant resurfacing of Classical Swine Fever (CSF) across the globe as a well-publicized example. The fact that CAFOs are largely mono-cultured also increases the risk of transmitting such diseases, as the lack of biodiversity harms animal adaptability and resilience to disease.

There are animal rights/ethical issues involved as well, many of which stem from the inherent layout and operation of confined feeding. However, the attendance* for the White House meeting concerning Final Rule regulations seems to indicate that none of those issues factored into the administrations thoughts on the subject of allowing financial assistance to these operations.

*http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/oira/2040/meetings/172.html

Reply to this comment

Reply to this comment

[ Tags ]

[ Tags ]

• HR 1217 (110th)

[ Spam ]

[ Spam ]